No way, buy it didn’t stop Uber from trying.
The case involves Uber and its former driver, Kevin Boddie.
Uber revoked Boddie’s ability to drive for Uber when it discovered that Boddie had a 16-year-old criminal conviction. In response, Boddie filed a charge of discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) alleging age and sex discrimination.
The PHRC found probable cause to investigate and closed the case in 2022. However, in January 2023, the PHRC reopened the case. Two months later, Boddie filed an amended charge claiming Uber’s background check policy was unfair to Black and Hispanic drivers.
Uber challenged the re-opening of Boddie’s case, but the PHRC rejected Uber’s arguments and proceeded to investigate. So, instead of cooperating in the investigation,
Uber sued Boddie. In its lawsuit Uber alleged that Boddie was required to arbitrate his claims and thus, the PHRC cannot continue investigating. Bold move.
The PHRC intervened in the lawsuit. Both the PHRC and Boddie filed motions to dismiss. Predictably, the judge granted the motions to dismiss. A copy of the order is attached.
Everything you need to know about this case comes from the very first paragraph of the judge’s order:
“The narrow issue resolved here is whether an employer can use an arbitration agreement with its employee to stop an investigation by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. No, it turns out. But under the surface, this case is about the PHRC’s administrative maneuvering to re-open an old investigation into Uber, the employer, brought by the employee, Mr. Boddie, and seemingly avoid the statute of limitations. Uber tried something creative and filed this suit to try to enforce its arbitration agreement with Mr. Boddie, but prevailing legal authority forbids that particular tactic.”
Long ago the United States Supreme Court held that although private suits may be bound by arbitration agreements, administrative charges, such as those through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are not.
I’m not entirely sure what Uber was thinking, perhaps this was the ultimate delay tactic.
Regardless, it’s an opportunity to remind employers that arbitration agreements do not prevent employees from filing charges of discrimination or prevent administrative investigation of those charges.
#law #hr #employmentlaw